Nobody said it wouldn't be useful, it's just not good for the game. It removes a fundamental challenge from the game.I have been in situations where this could help with adding a new building or changing buildings out with new ones, so I can see where it could be useful.
I obviously can't speak for everyone, but I never put out a single expansion as "swap space". And can't remember ever using Store Building items when rearranging a city. In fact, I rarely use Store Building items at all except for an event quest or to take a no-longer-effective special building out of my city for selling to the AD.We can all (or most of us) venture back to the time when the RECONSTRUCTION tools didn't exist, and people all said the same thing: Figure it out, the game should be challenging. Well, we did jump through hoops to modify our cities, putting out lots of land squares as swap space and used VERY precious as many "STORE BUILDING" tools as we could assemble (They were much rarer back then...).
No, in fact they are not. They have been meant from the beginning to be unmovable once placed. Hence the idea that they are a fundamental challenge of the game.Land squares are the same type of player/game resource as a monolithic event building, or something from the build menu. Roads included.
This is true. However, it is also not a reason to make this change. There are lots of decisions in the game that can benefit you if you make the correct one and pretty much destroy your game if you make the wrong one. For example, aging up too fast. Is that the next change? The ability to reverse other decisions? "Move up to fast? No problem, just age back down."They are earned multiple ways, and can benefit the owner in some configurations, and destroy the game in others.
Also true, but common sense should kick in pretty quickly. Also, as mentioned by others, if you screw up as a noob you can just start a new city and do it right. And, to be fair, placing one expansion wrong early in the game is not a game-breaker. And if you do it once you've been playing a while, then that's a "you" problem and not a game problem that needs to be "fixed".It is unknown as a new player what those will be,
Sets have been around a long time, and players have been able to deal with them pretty well even with the "handicap" of immovable expansions. And there have always been oddly shaped buildings that players have had to work into their cities. Moving expansions is no different from rotating buildings, and that's something Inno has a long time policy of not changing.and it's also fair to say, that INNO has designed NEW building types that have specific orientations to work - that weren't around when the game started but are here now, and are typically unknown when intrinsically new players decide to invest their time to start a new city.
TerraCotta Vineyard must be oriented 1 way to work with it's additional products, which is conceptually orthogonal (but really only 90 degrees) skewed from the Winter train building and it's rail cars. Statue of Honor and the Road to Victory go one way only - as does the Elephant Citadel and Iridescent Gardens, in the opposite direction.
There is no valid argument to be made from a game standpoint for changing the fundamental nature of this game mechanism (not a resource). Just because it makes sense to you as an individual player does not mean it would be good for the game. Once you make it so every decision reversible, you change this from a game to a sandbox. And make no mistake, once you start changing fundamentals of the game like this, there is nothing standing in the way of changing everything else.So before we get so resolute about a level of "challenging" we had then and we want people to have now, we need to consider that product concepts move forward, and tools should too.
I am not rabid that the idea of moveable land squares is a gating game item, but see it as a resource that should be included in the RECONSTRUCTION tool menu.
I wouldn’t really say it’s possible to “destroy your game”, but rather only slow it down. Everything can be fixed one way or another, it just takes time to do so.This is true. However, it is also not a reason to make this change. There are lots of decisions in the game that can benefit you if you make the correct one and pretty much destroy your game if you make the wrong one. For example, aging up too fast. Is that the next change? The ability to reverse other decisions? "Move up to fast? No problem, just age back down."
I only used the term "destroy" because the person I was quoting had used it. I also qualified my use of it by preceding the word with "pretty much", because you are right in that many mistakes can be corrected, given time. There are some, however, that cannot be corrected. Such as deleting the Yggdrasil Tree. Can't get another one of those once you've made that mistake.I wouldn’t really say it’s possible to “destroy your game”, but rather only slow it down. Everything can be fixed one way or another, it just takes time to do so.
The town hall gives coins daily, so even if you had 0 resources, you could still rebuild. Not to mention there’s Aiding for coins too. That then allows you to build up supplies, which in turn gives access to goods (though you can get those other ways too)
Well..... Support did return my Pillar of Heroes when I deleted it years ago..... So I wouldn't say you can't fix the mistake of deleting a YggdrasilThere are some, however, that cannot be corrected. Such as deleting the Yggdrasil Tree. Can't get another one of those once you've made that mistake.
Well, if you did it intentionally like I did in several cities...Well..... Support did return my Pillar of Heroes when I deleted it years ago..... So I wouldn't say you can't fix the mistake of deleting a Yggdrasil
The reason being, that is not the proposal being voted on. The proposal as written is what is being voted on, not the proposal not written.The vote does not mention the possibility that this could be limited.
Examples:
Only one expansion move per city re-do
One per month
Premium item
An award for contributing something to the game
You’re right it’s supposed to be a challenge. But in some cases you can get around that by spending a little money (or in some cases a lot of money). Let’s whitewash over that so that we can deny a couple of people the ability to move a couple of expansions.The game is SUPPOSED to be challenging. You are SUPPOSED to use your brain to work out strategies that make things work better and help you move forward to yet more challenges. It is not designed to let you get everything handed to you on a easy serve platter. There are plenty other mind dumbing games out there that do that.
The key words here are "in some cases". Obviously moving expansions is not one of those cases. Sure, some challenges can be got around by spending money, but that's not part of this proposal, so nobody is whitewashing over it. Are you suggesting that the ability to move expansions should only be available to those who spend money for it, if implemented? Because that's what you're implying here.You’re right it’s supposed to be a challenge. But in some cases you can get around that by spending a little money (or in some cases a lot of money). Let’s whitewash over that so that we can deny a couple of people the ability to move a couple of expansions.
I wasn’t trying to imply any such thing. You want us all to believe the rearranging expentions is some sort of game altering abomination that is going to affect the game more than the fact that some players buy their way through the game instead of actually playing it. The ability to move a few expansions isn’t going to give me or anyone else the same advantage as someone that spends $1000s of dollars a year on the game. Nothing you say will convince me otherwise.The key words here are "in some cases". Obviously moving expansions is not one of those cases. Sure, some challenges can be got around by spending money, but that's not part of this proposal, so nobody is whitewashing over it. Are you suggesting that the ability to move expansions should only be available to those who spend money for it, if implemented? Because that's what you're implying here.
Then mentioning other players spending money on the game is irrelevant to this topic.I wasn’t trying to imply any such thing.
No, I don't. You want to bring players spending money into the discussion when it has nothing to do with the suggestion of the OP. I make no comparison between the two at all. They are apples and oranges.You want us all to believe the rearranging expentions is some sort of game altering abomination that is going to affect the game more than the fact that some players buy their way through the game instead of actually playing it.
Again, that is irrelevant. It is a straw man argument because no one is saying what you're arguing against.The ability to move a few expansions isn’t going to give me or anyone else the same advantage as someone that spends $1000s of dollars a year on the game.
And I'm not trying to convince you otherwise because I'm only discussing the ability to move expansions, not players spending money.Nothing you say will convince me otherwise.